United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wilhoit, Jr. United States District Judge.
has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) to
challenge a final decision of the Defendant denying
Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits. The
Court having reviewed the record in this case and the
dispositive motions filed by the parties, and being otherwise
sufficiently advised, for the reasons set forth herein, finds
that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is
supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed his current application for disability insurance
benefits in February 2013, alleging disability beginning on
January 1, 2012, due to degenerative disc disease, lumbar
spinal stenosis, clinical depression, arthritis, addiction to
narcotic pain medication, social anxiety, hypertension,
herniated discs, neuropathy and sleep apnea (Tr. 199).
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Susan
Giuffre (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Paul A.
Zinsmeister, a vocational expert (hereinafter
"VE"), also testified.
hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ
performed the following five-step sequential analysis in
order to determine whether the Plaintiff was disabled:
Step 1: If the claimant is performing substantial gainful
work, he is not disabled.
Step 2: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful
work, his impairment(s) must be severe before he can be found
to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R.
Step 3: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful
work and has a severe impairment (or impairments) that has
lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at
least twelve months, and his impairments (or impairments)
meets or medically equals a listed impairment contained in
Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4, the claimant is
disabled without further inquiry.
Step 4: If the claimant's impairment (or impairments)
does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work, he is
Step 5: Even if the claimant's impairment or impairments
prevent him from performing his past relevant work, if other
work exists in significant numbers in the national economy
that accommodates his residual functional capacity and
vocational factors, he is not disabled.
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled
(Tr. 22-36). Plaintiff was 42 years old at time of the onset
of his alleged disability. He has a GED and has worked
previously as a contractor/carpenter and building maintenance
worker (Tr. 200).
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability through his date of last
insured, June 20, 2014 (Tr. 24).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from spine
disorders, substance addiction disorders, affective disorders
and anxiety disorders, which he found to be